Everyone deserves dignity and respect in the workplace. If you’ve ever had a difficult boss or co-worker, this app is for you.

Stop Workplace Bullying is a free quiz app built on Dr. Robert Fuller’s book “Somebodies and Nobodies”. When you take this quiz, you can start to recognize the type of difficult person you’re dealing with. There are several types of abusive bosses and this app helps you name and claim what’s going on.

In the full version of the app, you can also read useful advice on how to deal with each different kind of abusive boss, and resources to help you figure out what to do next.

So, why would you want to get the workplace bullying app? Because you or someone you know is being bullied at work. Because bullying doesn’t end in the schoolyard. Because when you see your boss’s car, you feel tense. Because you feel well on vacation but when you get back to work you are sick again. Because you are starting to resent your boss. Because your real life happens outside of work. Because the petty gossip is really getting to you. Because of all of these things, you want to learn how to deal with your workplace situation in a more constructive way.

We are going to show you how to deal with all kinds of situations at work to help you take your power back. For instance, does your boss never say hello or goodbye to you? Does your boss use your company resources for personal projects? Does your boss prevent you from speaking to people higher up? All of these behaviors are not okay. This app will help you name and claim them, and take your power back, step by step.

We help you learn how to name what is happening, and then claim it. Say, at first, to yourself, that this is not okay. And then help you see how to be a persuader and an activist.

If you don’t have have a smartphone or you would like more resources on workplace bullying, plesae see:

Couldn't find a relevant photo for this blog post, so I settled on these pretty sunflowers a friend gave me recently.

I’ve taken a hiatus from writing on the Dignity Movement blog and Facebook wall, as has Bob Fuller. Here’s why: we’ve spent the past few weeks discussing whether our goal really is to build a movement around the concept of dignity and against rankism.

That’s what we originally set out to do in February; that’s why we built the DM Facebook page and this blog in the first place. We felt the pressing need for an actual, member-driven dignity movement. But a few weeks ago, Bob and I independently came to the same conclusion: the dignity movement already exists. It’s called the women’s movement. The abolitionist movement. The anti-genocide movement. The healthcare reform movement. The list goes on, but one central point remains: any movement of people that strives in any way to uphold and defend dignity and combat a form of rankism is, in fact, a part of the larger dignity movement.

So what, then? Is our mission accomplished?

Not yet. Hundreds of millions of people the world over may be fighting rankism and defending dignity on a daily basis, but if they aren’t seeing their work through that lens, they may not see how it is connected to the work of others. And it’s that deeper understanding that will allow us to transcend the boundaries of our single issue-focused struggles and join hands in solidarity against all forms of rank abuse. It’s that deeper understanding that will truly bring about a dignitarian future.

The last time we chatted, Bob and I agreed that we can leave the movement-building piece to the thousands of incredible organizers and advocates across the US and around the world. We want to focus our efforts on spreading the word about rankism and how to stop it.

Let’s make sure everyone knows how to recognize and challenge rankism when they see it. If you’re with us, share some ideas below of how we can get started. We’re thinking of creating a powerful YouTube video and writing some engaging Huffington Post pieces. Other suggestions?

]]>https://fightrankism.wordpress.com/2011/07/07/where-have-we-been/feed/0hillcharlottesunflowers2Words of Wisdom and Dignity vs. Rankismhttps://fightrankism.wordpress.com/2011/06/09/words-of-wisdom-and-dignity-vs-rankism/
https://fightrankism.wordpress.com/2011/06/09/words-of-wisdom-and-dignity-vs-rankism/#respondFri, 10 Jun 2011 00:16:18 +0000http://fightrankism.wordpress.com/?p=185]]>Robert W. Fuller, founder of the dignity movement, shared these words of wisdom in an email the other day. I thought I’d pass them on to you.

Nowadays, in developed societies, predation does not so much take the form of attacking others’ physical bodies; rather, it takes the form of doing damage to others’ psychological selves. Wounded and weakened, people are rendered less competitive, and this works to the predator’s advantage.

Going from preying on bodies to preying on selves is analogous to going from ball-and-chain slavery to wage slavery: a less egregious form of setting others up for exploitation, for advantaging oneself at their expense.

Isn’t it amazing that little kids begin doing this to each other, with sneers and put-downs, long before they have any idea what they’re doing? We have only to make such behavior visible and call it by name to set in motion a process that will eventually render it insupportable.

Slavery is no longer something to be proud of. Someday, put downs of any sort will be widely regarded as equally indefensible.

Join us in putting a name to rankist behaviors. Robert and I are compiling a list of dignified/rankist antonyms, such as somebody/nobody or include/exclude. Which antonym pairs come to mind for you when you’re thinking about dignity and rankism?

]]>https://fightrankism.wordpress.com/2011/06/09/words-of-wisdom-and-dignity-vs-rankism/feed/0hillcharlottedignityRankism In the News: Another Sexual Abuse Scandal?https://fightrankism.wordpress.com/2011/05/30/rankism-in-the-news-another-sexual-abuse-scandal/
https://fightrankism.wordpress.com/2011/05/30/rankism-in-the-news-another-sexual-abuse-scandal/#commentsTue, 31 May 2011 05:31:15 +0000http://fightrankism.wordpress.com/?p=182]]>How many more of these sexual abuse scandals will be uncovered in 2011?

According to the Huffington Post, “The former chairman of one of Egypt’s major banks has been arrested on charges of sexually abusing a maid at a Manhattan hotel, just weeks after the arrest of former IMF chief Dominique Strauss-Kahn on similar allegations.”

You may remember the media flurry over DSK’s indiscretions — read, horrible rankist abuses of power — from earlier this month. “Strauss-Kahn quit as the leader of the International Monetary Fund,” HuffPost reminds us, “on May 18 after he was charged with sexually assaulting a maid at a different city hotel. He has denied the allegations, but is under house arrest as he awaits trial.”

But back to our Egyptian friend. “[Mahmoud Abdel Salam Omar, a] 74-year-old businessman is accused of sexually abusing the maid and holding her against her will inside his hotel room” on Sunday night.

Talk about rankism in action.

]]>https://fightrankism.wordpress.com/2011/05/30/rankism-in-the-news-another-sexual-abuse-scandal/feed/1hillcharlotteDIGIPIX10 Ways to Stop Rankism in Work, Education, Healthcare, Religion, and Morehttps://fightrankism.wordpress.com/2011/05/22/10-ways-to-stop-rankism-in-work-education-healthcare-religion-and-more/
https://fightrankism.wordpress.com/2011/05/22/10-ways-to-stop-rankism-in-work-education-healthcare-religion-and-more/#respondMon, 23 May 2011 05:48:21 +0000http://fightrankism.wordpress.com/?p=178]]>Ending rankism will take more than ad hoc, interpersonal acts of dignity. We need to transform the social, economic, and political structures that shape our lives on a daily basis — education, work, healthcare, religion, sports, politics — into places where rankism is never tolerated and dignity is always upheld. Below, Robert W. Fuller offers 10 ways for us to do just that.

1. Work: Take the trouble to understand how co-workers contribute to getting the job done and acknowledge their contribution.
If you are a boss, it’s not enough to avoid treating your employees in a rankist manner (though the example you set will reverberate through the entire organization); you are also responsible for making sure that your subordinates treat their subordinates with dignity. Dignitarian companies are not only happier workplaces, they are also healthier, more creative and more productive ones.

2. Education: Create “Indignity Free Zones.”
Teachers are increasingly sensitive to the harm done to students by indignity. If you’re an educator, you can bring this awareness into the open and communicate it to those students whose bullying and humiliation of peers unconsciously mirrors that of adult society. A threat to a student’s dignity is more than a discourtesy. It is an attack on one’s status in the “tribe,” and carries an implicit threat of ostracism and exclusion. Status has historically been a matter of life and death and remains a determinant of whether we prosper or decline, so an attack on status is experienced as a threat to survival. Rankism poisons the learning environment.

3. Healthcare: Enlist your patients as partners.
If you are a healthcare provider, you can help your clients make the awkward transition from patients to partners. Ridding healthcare of its legacy of dehumanization and infantilization is good medical practice. You can also insist on respect throughout the organization in which you work. If you are a patient, have compassion for doctors, too. It’s not easy to give up one’s “deity status,” and many physicians are doing so with remarkable grace. Moreover, remember that they’re victims of rankism themselves at the hands of HMOs that often treat them less like the professionals they are and more like pieceworkers on an assembly line.

4. Sports: Have respect for the other team.
If you’re a coach, you can forbid trash talk, on and off the court, among your players and to your opponents. Show your team that they are capable of more–not by humiliating them but by teaching and inspiring them. Rent the 1973 film Bang the Drum Slowly and show it to your athletes. Its punch line–“I rag on nobody”–puts it in the dignitarian hall of fame.

5. Religion: Exemplify rather than exhort.
If you’re a religious leader, you can refrain from pulling spiritual rank. You can do more for your flock by listening and providing them with a personal example worthy of emulation than you can by invoking higher authority, which is often little more than a claim that God shares your politics.

6. Guardian professions (policing): Bring dignity to law enforcement.
If you’re a policeman or woman, protect citizens’ dignity as you already protect their lives. Any kind of profiling is rankism.

7. Military: One part of a strong defense is not giving offense in the first place.
Indignity is the source of indignation, so to avoid escalation or revenge, take care to spare your foes gratuitous indignities.

8. Politics: Restore civility to politics
If you’re in electoral politics you can point the way to a dignitarian society, even if your colleagues aren’t yet ready to embrace your ideas. Treat your opponents with dignity. Don’t sneer, mock, or condescend. Avoid patronizing or posturing. When politicians lay claim to moral superiority, they extend rankism’s lease. Since rankism is an attack on both liberty and dignity, denounce it along with the other “isms.” Explain to your constituents why you’re against it–in all its forms–and then go after them one by one. Be the leader you wanted to be when you first imagined running for office. Be willing to lose an election for your dignitarian convictions. If you do lose, run for office a few years later, and win! To paraphrase Victor Hugo, dignity is an idea whose time has come.

9. Other professions: Show the world dignity through your profession.
If you’re an artist, expose rankism; put dignity on exhibit. If you’re a philosopher, define and deconstruct dignity. If you’re a psychologist, demonstrate the consequences of malrecogntion. If you’re a comedian, make us laugh at the double standards that apply to somebodies and nobodies. If you’re a filmmaker, give us heroes who overcome rankism without resorting to rankism. If you’re a songwriter, write an anthem for the dignity movement. If you’re a TV producer, stop exploiting humiliation and celebrating rankism. Sooner than you think, the staple of TV entertainment–humiliation–is going to feel as off-key as racism, sexism and homophobia do today.

10. Be a Susan B. Anthony of the Dignity Movement.
In the 19th century, Susan B. Anthony traveled a million miles by train and gave 20,000 speeches advocating the enfranchisement of women. Sadly, she did not live to see the success of the suffragette movement she spearheaded (but her image is on the dollar coin). If you’re an organizer, create a chapter of the dignitarian movement in your area. Coordinate with other chapters and make them a national force under the slogan “no rankism” and the banner “dignity for all.” Programs to help the poor or end poverty will continue to fall short until those trapped in the underclass have found their voice and together insist on respect and equity. Do what Susan B. Anthony did for women and Rosa Parks and Martin Luther King, Jr. did for African-Americans: help the victims of chronic indignity find an effective way to give voice to their plight and change the status quo.

]]>https://fightrankism.wordpress.com/2011/05/22/10-ways-to-stop-rankism-in-work-education-healthcare-religion-and-more/feed/0hillcharlotterankism shoutingWhen Good People Do Bad Thingshttps://fightrankism.wordpress.com/2011/05/16/when-good-people-do-bad-things/
https://fightrankism.wordpress.com/2011/05/16/when-good-people-do-bad-things/#respondTue, 17 May 2011 01:23:58 +0000http://fightrankism.wordpress.com/?p=172]]>A piece posted today on bNET, CBS’s Interactive Business Network, asked why “moral” people act unethically. Having read quite a bit about the Holocaust and other extreme acts of violence in humanity’s past, I figured the piece would delve into the standard “banality of evil” argument: that people who do bad deeds are often good (or, at least, morally neutral) people in bad situations.

This explains the Nazi prison guard who emotionally and physically destroys his inmates, only to arrive home at the end of the workday to his loving wife and children. The world of evil isn’t filled with psychopaths and schizophrenics; more often, it’s filled with bread-and-butter folks like you and me.

I was surprised, then, to find a different, equally interesting concept presented in this bNET piece: that people who claim their moral superiority — religious leaders, members of Congress, etc. — are more susceptible to acting unethically precisely because of the pedestal they so proudly place themselves on. As the author of the piece, Jeffrey Pfeffer, writes,

If someone has behaved morally or in some other way established a moral image, that frees the person to subsequently engage in less ethical behavior–sort of the moral equivalent of permitting yourself to eat chocolate cake after you exercised. For example, one study found that participants asked to write a story referencing their positive traits donated just one-fifth as much as those who had to write a story about their negative traits.

Another experiment in the same paper concluded that this effect occurred because of the impact of the story-writing on participants’ self-concept–people who felt badly about themselves (having made negative traits salient) bolstered their self-image by being more generous, while those who already felt positively about themselves were free to be less generous. Other research demonstrated that when study participants’ past behavior established their credentials as non-prejudiced individuals, they were morewilling to express attitudes that showed prejudice.

While these findings are fascinating in and of themselves, it’s the overall conclusion drawn by Pfeffer, the author, himself that really caught my attention. Pfeffer suggests that we businesspeople (remember, he’s writing for a business publication) should avoid over-praising fellow business(wo)men for ethical behavior, since they may then unconsciously feel entitled to commit unethical acts.

…To encourage the best behavior on your team, it is important to not bestow excessive praise or positive regard, so they feel as if they must continually demonstrate their moral credentials. It is when people feel they have nothing left to prove that they don’t.

This aligns so closely with the business leadership model of the Dignity Movement. Note that Pfeffer doesn’t blame rank for unethical acts; he blames the self-aggrandizing language that the rank makes possible.

And his solution doesn’t call for the abolition of rank; nowhere does he ask for businesses to eliminate their leadership structures. Rather, Pfeffer calls for checks and balances. All leaders should be required to “continually demonstrate their moral credentials.”

In other words, self-proclaimed moral leaders must continually earn their titles. This has been one of the core messages of the Dignity Movement for years now. I’m glad to see that the business community, finally, is coming on board.

Fifty to one hundred thousand years ago, a small group of homo sapiens made its way out of Africa and established settlements in what we now call the Middle East. Over the millennia, we multiplied and spread across the whole earth. In response to variations in climate, one race became many.

As earlier hominids had done, we gathered and we hunted, preying on whatever and whomever we could. We also sought power and used our language and model-building skills to turn nature’s power to our purposes.

Our forebears domesticated plants and animals, steadily improved their tools and weapons, and honed their fighting skills. By the time different tribes ran into one another, they no longer recognized they were all of one family. Other humans looked strange, sounded stranger, and made us afraid.

When facing enslavement or death, we used our martial skills to defend ourselves. Or, if we had the advantage, we could prey on others. All it takes is one predatory tribe to drag others into the fight.

Among the models we built, those pertaining to social organization and governance were especially important to the power we could mobilize. The nature of relationships within a group can either facilitate or undercut alignment around a common political purpose. Prosperity and solidarity, both so powerfully affected by institutions of governance, determine a group’s capability to defend itself against other groups or to dominate them.

Power Rules

The “olden days” often seem rosier in hindsight than they did to people at the time. So, it’s not hard to understand why, in the thick of the struggle for survival, the authors of Genesis conjured an Edenic paradise. We’ve been comforting ourselves with stories of bountiful origins ever since.

Archeologists tell a different story. In place of noble savages living in abundance and harmony, they give us a picture of “constant battles” driven by scarcity of food and resources.

Humans multiply quickly; our numbers can soon outstrip the food supply. But, the precise causes of conflict are not relevant here. Very likely they ranged from competition to survive in the face of dwindling resources to dreams of empire. Life presented an endless series of choices that turned on kinship. Friend or foe? To embrace or exploit?

One choice sees strangers as lost relatives, the other as potential aggressors, or as prey. In the struggle for survival, “we” have just what “they” need—food, water, tools, territory, animals, child-bearers, manpower—and vice versa. If resources are scarce, appropriating those of other humans may be the only chance for survival, or it may simply recommend itself as a get-rich-quick scheme.

Once the choice is made to regard others as prey, the aim, if not to kill, is to subordinate and enslave. Far from being an aberration, slavery has been commonplace in history. Only in the nineteenth century was its legitimacy seriously questioned. Slavery continues to this day in overt forms (child-slavery and human trafficking), and in the indirect form of subsistence wages. As Reverend Jim Wallis has put it, “Poverty is the new slavery.”

Of course, modern humans didn’t invent the predatory option. We absorbed it imitatively from our hominid ancestors, and before that, from apes whose internecine battles have been well documented.

To limit injury to self, we, like other predators, opportunistically targeted the weak. None of us would be here if our own ancestors had not been either relatively successful predators (or relatively good evaders of others’ predations).

Sari Nusseibeh, president of Al Quds University in Jerusalem and a descendant of an aristocratic Palestinian family, quotes his father as telling him, “All family dynasties can trace their histories back to some act of brigandage.”

I have heard the same from the heirs of several American fortunes.

Hierarchy and Rank

We tend to think of rank as sanctioning abuse and exploitation, but, in its conception, rank served as a device for regulating predation within the group. By concentrating power in a “top dog” or a “king” and a ruling class, rank served to replace anarchic predation with regulated predation. Despite the privileges taken for itself by the aristocracy, this represented progress at the time.

Every human society, of any size and complexity, has employed hierarchical control. Not to do so was to fall victim to groups that did avail themselves of the superior organization afforded by the tools of rank and hierarchy. Law and order trumps anarchy. In return for providing order, the ruler and the ruling class take a share of the fruits of the labor of those they protect from anarchy and foreign invaders. No wonder we’re suspicious of rank—it’s the linchpin of the archetypal protection racket. With a few notable, game-changing exceptions, lordship degenerates into overlordship.

But, the existence of the occasional benevolent ruler makes the point that rank is not inherently evil: we admire, we even love, just, fair-minded authorities who serve the group and eschew personal gain.

When rulers violate the terms of the tacit contract they have with their subjects—by unduly exploiting them, self-aggrandizement, or by failing to protect them against external predators—indignities multiply, fester, and may lead to rebellion and revolution. Over the long-term, the result is to rein in the powers of the governing class. Reforms that hold rulers accountable diminish rank’s prerogatives and represent progress for human dignity and human rights.

Think of the examples that follow as milestones towards a world in which the opportunity for abusing the power exercised by officials is reduced. In listing a few key figures and landmark events in the expansion of the circle of dignity, no attempt is made at inclusiveness. This is merely a “starter” list, the purpose of which is to provoke readers to make nominations to their own dignitarian hall of fame.

Milestones on the Road to Universal Dignity

I believe in Spinoza’s God who reveals himself in the orderly harmony of what exists, not in a God who concerns himself with the fate and actions of human beings.

– Albert Einstein

• Monotheism

In contrast to polytheism, where the various gods may be at odds with one another, a single god is presumed to have a comprehensive, unitary consciousness.

Monotheism is the theological counterpart of the scientist’s belief in the ultimate reconcilability of apparently contradictory observations into one consistent framework. If God is of one mind, we cannot expect to know that mind until, at the very least, we have eliminated inconsistencies in our data and contradictions in our partial visions. This democratizes the search for truth by undercutting the notion that the imprimatur of authority (e.g., the Church) makes a proposition true.

Monotheism is therefore a powerful constraint on the models we build. They must be free of both internal and external contradictions; they must not depend on who it is that’s doing the observing. This is a stringent condition for models to satisfy, and few do.

Theistic religions proclaim the existence of a personal, caring God. Given the supreme importance of dignity and human beings’ spotty record when it comes to providing it to each other, it’s the rare person who, when worldly options are exhausted, has not imagined acceptance from a supra-human source. As the “dignifier of last resort,” a supreme being, whose judgment trumps that of our community, can validate our strivings when our fellow humans reject us.

If and when we discover life elsewhere in the universe, the question of monotheism will arise again: if extra-terrestrials worship a god, is their god our God, or are we back to polytheism?

The same laws of nature that obtain on Earth hold as far as we can peer into the Universe. If there is a Creator, it would appear that He doesn’t reinvent the wheel. If the same physical laws hold throughout the universe, then it’s plausible that aliens will honor dignity as we do. This will be a good thing for us, if, as is statistically likely, we are not the most advanced life-forms in the Cosmos, because then more advanced beings will watch over us, much as we protect endangered species.

• The Golden Rule

Just as good parents do not play favorites among their children, so God, conceived of as a single idealized father figure, would presumably accord equal dignity to all his “children.” The Golden Rule is a symmetry condition—equal dignity for all, regardless of rank or role—that, with slight variations, is found in virtually every religion or ethical code.

Do not do to others what would cause pain if done to you.

– Hinduism

Treat not others in ways that you yourself would find hurtful.

– Buddhism

What you do not want done to yourself, do not do to others.

– Confucianism

What is hateful to you, do not do to your neighbor.

– Judaism

Do unto others as you would have them do unto you.

– Christianity

Not one of you truly believes until you wish for others what you wish for yourself.

– Islam

We should behave to our friends, as we would wish our friends to behave to us.

– Aristotle

Act only on that maxim through which you can at the same time will that it should become a universal law.

– Immanuel Kant’s Categorical Imperative

Contrariwise, a deviation from equal dignity is a broken symmetry and, as in physics, a deviation from symmetry signals the existence of a force that breaks it. Among humans, asymmetries take the form of inequitable or preferential treatment of persons or groups and, as in the physical world, these deviations from the symmetry implicit in the Golden Rule signal the existence of coercion. For example, slavery requires force or the threat of force.

• Hammurabi’s Legal Code

(18th century BCE)

I had an ah-ha experience as a boy when I heard about King Hammurabi’s practice of posting not only a list of crimes, but right along side each one, the specific punishments that would be meted out for committing them. By having the code carved in stone, the Babylonian ruler was signaling that the laws were immutable, universal, and not even subject to the whim of the king himself. Hammurabi’s Code is one of the first to establish the presumption of innocence until proven guilty. I urged my parents to emulate Hammurabi.

• The Ten Commandments of Moses

(15th-13th century B.C.E.)

The notion of a commandment raises the issue of the authority of the command-giver. Although most of the Ten Commandments sounded reasonable in Sunday School, I wondered about their origin. How could anyone be sure they came from God? Moreover, not everyone believed in the existence of God in the first place. I thought it would be important to non-believers to demonstrate that these rules could be justified in terms of their contribution to social wellbeing. And, if they could not be so justified, to drop them. Among other things, the Commandments give expression to the idea of monotheism and its corollary of a single Fatherhood within which we are all brothers and sisters deserving of equal dignity.

• Confucius

(551 B.C.E.– 479 B.C.E.)

Confucius emphasized personal and governmental morality and justice. Like the biblical prophets and their Kingdom of Heaven, Confucius imagined a Mandate of Heaven in which rulers chosen on the basis of merit, not birth, would bring peace and prosperity to the people through the power of exemplary moral behavior. Again, the idea is that the governing class is not above the law but rather is honor bound to serve others, not self.

• Mo Tzu’s Family of Man and Doctrine of Universal Love

(5th century B.C.E.)

Mo Tzu is less well known in the West than other Eastern prophets, but no less significant. He may have been first to see the world as a village of kinsfolk, and from this insight he deduced that aggressive war is never justified. His doctrine of universal love and his argument that it is “supremely practical” were prescient and original. Mo Tzu’s place in the Dignitarian Hall of Fame is unassailable, despite his diatribes against music and dance. Even in antiquity, futurists had their foibles.

This goes beyond assurances of equal dignity, but a world in which no one fears for his or her dignity will likely be one in which brotherly love will feel much nearer at hand than it does to most today. Absent indignity, love might just possibly “bust out all over.”

• Magna Carta

(England, 1215)

When King John yielded to the demands of the barons at Runnymede—that he spell out his powers and guarantee their privileges—he was starting down a road that would lead to constitutional democracy. The “Great Charter” he was forced to sign famously includes the writ of habeas corpus, enshrining the right to appeal against unlawful imprisonment. I suspect that there were voices at Runnymede who resisted taking those first baby steps towards democracy on the grounds that gorillas had not done so and therefore it was contrary to nature to devolve power. That kind of thinking, still heard today, fails to appreciate the extent to which human intelligence and communication skills make possible complex organizations that, by tapping the power of numbers, can trump brute force.

• Martin Luther and the Protestant Reformation

(Germany, 1517)

The Protestant Reformation began as a protest against systemic corruption within the church hierarchy, extending even to the Pope. In his magisterial account of political revolutions, Eugen Rosenstock-Heussy

argues that the least corrupt countries are heirs of the Protestant Revolution.

• Oliver Cromwell, Charles I, and the “Divine Right of Kings” (Britain, 1649)

Putting the king on trial and chopping off his head unambiguously made a point, (subsequently reiterated by the French in the headless person of King Louis XVI), that indeed there was no right to rule, divine or otherwise. Once the Divine Right of Kings has been nullified, people are free to ask, “Who does have the right to rule?” and to imagine that governing is not a right at all, and that our governors should serve us, not vice versa. The shift from monarchy to democracy prefigures the shift from faith-based to evidence-based truth: trust your own eyes over authority.

• The Glorious Revolution

(British, 1688–89)

The Glorious Revolution marked the end of absolute monarchial power and the beginning of modern English parliamentary democracy. The monarch could no longer suspend laws, levy taxes, make royal appointments, or maintain a standing army during peacetime without Parliament’s permission, a historic step towards civilian control of the military. The Bill of Rights it produced is a milestone in the history of liberty, justice, and human dignity.

• Frederick the Great

(King of Prussia, 1744–97)

Unlike many of his contemporaries, Frederick did not believe in the Divine Right of Kings. He saw himself as the “first servant of the state” and joked that the crown was “a hat that let the rain in.” To attract a more skilled citizenry, he generally supported religious tolerance, proclaiming, “All religions are equal and good and as long as those practicing are an honest people and wish to populate our land…we will build them mosques and churches.” Yes, mosques.

• The U.S. Constitution (1776–1787)

Its genius was to assume the worst of politicians and design an elaborate system of checks and balances to minimize corruption and maximize the accountability of office holders. Its most egregious flaw was the creation of two kinds of exclusions: women and people of color were held in abusive, exploitative second-class citizenships.

It took the Suffragette movement of the 19th century to win women the vote and the Civil War and the civil rights movement to win equal rights for racial minorities. Despite its shortcomings, the U.S. Constitution is a landmark in circumscribing the prerogatives of government and, as amended, upholding the rights of citizens.

• “Liberté, Égalité, Fraternité” (France, 1789)

France’s tri-partite revolutionary slogan has inspired reformers for two centuries. A puzzling omission is Dignité, which trumps the slogan’s three stated goals.

• The Abolition of Slavery (Britain, 1833; Russia, 1861; and the United States, 1863)

Slavery was regarded as business as usual until the 18th century when Enlightenment thinkers criticized it for violating the Rights of Man and Quakers condemned it as a violation of Christian ethics.

Czar Alexander II freed the serfs in Russia in 1861 and Lincoln issued the Emancipation Proclamation freeing the slaves held in the Confederate States in 1863. Two years later, the 13th Amendment to the U.S. Constitution prohibited slavery throughout the country.

• Labor Unionization (19th – 20th century)

A landmark in the struggle between Nobodies and Somebodies (in the respective roles of Labor and Management) was the adoption of legislation guaranteeing the right of employees to unionize and bargain collectively.

• Gandhi and Decolonization (20th century)

In the 20th century the imperial powers were forced to abandon colonialism as subjects learned to mount effective resistance to foreign occupation. Once the costs of enforcing exploitation exceeded the value of what could be expropriated, colonialism in its traditional form was finished.

• UniversalDeclaration of Human Rights of the United Nations

(1948)

The United Nations Charter elevates dignity to the status of a human right and charges governments with protecting it.

Exploited subgroups have learned how to organize so as to resist predation by their fellow citizens. Much as slavery lost its sanction in the 19th century, the residue of slavery and segregation—racism—lost legitimacy in the 20th. Other discriminatory “isms” (anti-Semitism, sexism, ageism, ableism, homophobia) have joined racism in disrepute.

But identity politics can take us only so far because it’s predicated on an “us” versus “them” distinction. In contrast, dignitarian politics is all-inclusive. All of us are both victims and perpetrators of rankism.

In every struggle to overcome an ism there are some non-victims who nevertheless ally themselves with the victims and attempt to overturn the prevailing consensus. For such liberal forerunners, there’s an element of altruism at work.

In contrast, one supports the dignity movement against rankism to secure one’s own dignity, and soon realizes that one’s dignity is only as secure as the next fellow’s.

As self-interest and altruism come into alignment, the Golden Rule is self-enforcing and the transition from a predatory to a dignitarian world becomes irreversible.

• TheHuman Potential Movement (1960–present).

Man is a creature who makes pictures of himself and then comes to resemble the picture. – Iris Murdock

In its insistence that everyone has untapped mental, physical, and spiritual faculties, the Human Potential Movement goes beyond identity politics. The HPM presents us with a new picture of ourselves, and, slowly but surely, we are coming to resemble the picture.

§§§

Each of the milestones mentioned above marks a curtailment of the potential for rank-based abuse, and so a strengthening of individual human rights. Establishing a human right doesn’t guarantee it, but it does shift the burden of proof from victim to perpetrator, and that makes officialdom more accountable and therefore less likely to abuse the power inherent in rank.

These milestones provide empirical evidence for Martin Luther King, Jr.’s claim that the arc of the moral universe bends toward justice. The arc’s curvature, however, is still indecipherable to many. Indeed, no one who witnessed the horrors of the 20th century can be faulted for thinking that the curvature is bending away from justice.

To determine the curvature in spite of the arguable historical record, we need a theory.

From Predation to Dignity: The Paradox of Force

Without a theory the facts are silent.

– Frederic Hayek

Since World War II there have been scores of wars, millions of casualties, tens of millions of refugees; fighting continues today in many parts of the world.

Since the Holocaust, and despite the world’s determination that it not happen again, genocides have occurred in Cambodia, Rwanda, Bosnia, Darfur, and elsewhere. Persistent poverty enshrouds one-third of the world’s six billion people and many fear that population pressure and/or climate change will pit us against each other in a struggle for scarce resources.

In this light, it’s not unreasonable to argue that man’s predatory practices continue unabated, and many so argue. But, an analysis of the social dynamics of power provides a sliver of hope. Martin Luther King, Jr. did not prophesy quick or easy passage to justice, only that over the long haul the moral arc was bending in our favor.

Successful predation depends on a power advantage. Humans have an edge over the other animals and, from time to time, often as a result of a technical or organizational breakthrough, they may gain an edge over other humans as well. To the extent that we can put people down and keep them there, we can take what’s theirs and force them to do our bidding. To the extent that we can’t credibly do so, we become vulnerable to their predations.

One reading of the human story emphasizes war, domination, rapine, pillage, slavery, colonization, and exploitation. Wealth and leisure for the few and a subsistence living for the many.

Another telling of history, as illustrated in the milestones cited above, highlights overthrowing tyrants, expelling colonizers, and, by marshaling the strength in numbers, progressively emancipating ourselves from domination, slavery, and exploitation.

A “paradox of force” lies in the fact that a group’s competitive success vis à vis other groups depends on limiting the use of coercive force within the group. Why?

If a ruler is too cruel to his subjects, morale will deteriorate to the point that the group’s will to fight is impaired. Unjust leaders do not command loyalty and, when push comes to shove, their people turn on them. On the other hand, if members know their place in a group is respected and secure, this assurance is in itself an asset when competing with other groups.

This means that societies have had to seek a balance between two postures—a predatory stance (consisting of some mix of aggressive and defensive capabilities) looking outwards, and a dignitarian stance looking inwards.

Not to complement outward-directed predatory capability with a modicum of dignity for those within the group has been to lose out to groups whose stronger social bond enabled them to field a superior force. In sum, the predatory capability of a group vis à vis other groups depends on developing dignitarian policies within the group.

For this reason, the principle of equal dignity is more than an admonition to be “nice.” A policy of equal dignity enhances the strength of groups that practice it. None do so consistently, of course, but some do so more than others and this gives them a competitive advantage stemming from group solidarity. This suggests that, on a millennial time scale, the Golden Rule is self-enforcing. We were too quick to judge it toothless. Rather, it simply took a few thousand years to grow teeth.

As we realize that dignitarian societies have, over the long haul, a competitive advantage, and as less dignitarian groups are absorbed by more dignitarian ones, we operationalize the Golden Rule.

Within a group, it’s not just “top dogs” who abuse power. Power abuse is a tempting strategy at any rank because everybody is a somebody to someone and a nobody to someone else. Accordingly, a predatory posture can be assumed towards underlings no matter where one stands in the hierarchy.

Because societies predicated on equal dignity are more stable, productive, creative, and are more strongly committed to their common cause—be it aggressive or defensive—they are, on average, fitter. This does not mean that dignitarian groups win every contest with more predatory ones. Factors other than social cohesion are at play. But it does mean that, with starts and fits, organizations that tolerate power abuses effectively de-select themselves.

Over a long enough time period, the circle of dignity expands more than it shrinks.

The paradox of force is that, statistically, and over time, dignitarian societies gradually absorb more predacious ones until finally there is no longer a significant likelihood of inter-group predation. Indignant, disgruntled outliers may resort to terrorism, but they will not be viable unless they are serving as proxies for a group large enough to harbor and fund them.

A selection process governed by the same dynamic unfolds among organizations. For example, more dignitarian companies will, on average, serve their customers and employees better, and will outperform less dignitarian ones. In the end, equal dignity becomes the norm.

While such an evolutionary trend may sound Pollyannaish, it is revealed as a logical consequence of the free play of power within and between competing groups. The paradox of force—that in the long run, right makes might, not vice versa—provides a causal explanation for Martin Luther King, Jr.’s observation regarding the curvature of the moral universe. Despite the relentless drumbeat of bad news, and barring a major catastrophe (such as one resulting from nuclear or cyber war, pandemic, famine, climate change, or collision with an asteroid) denizens of the 21st century could find themselves witness to the phasing out of our age-old predatory strategy and its replacement by a dignitarian one.

Predation, No; Competition, Yes

The majority of our human ancestors have suffered lives that, as seventeenth-century English philosopher Thomas Hobbes famously put it, were “nasty, brutish, and short.” A great many still do. But we’re at a critical juncture beyond which lies the possibility of an epochal shift to a post-predatory era. Predation has taken us this far, and for that we must give it its due. But as a survival strategy it can take us no further without undermining what any strategy is meant to do—ensure our survival. We can take heart from the fact that we’ve already disallowed several broad categories of predatory behavior (e.g., those referenced in “Milestones”), and go on from there to disallow predation itself.

First, however, there’s one more make-or-break issue that must be addressed. Removing the traces of predation from our treatment of others is analogous to the reeducation now underway around issues of race, gender, sexual orientation, and disability. It’s not a quick or easy process, but a start has been made and there’s no going back. For those of us who grew up within a social consensus that condoned the familiar “isms,” we can change our overt behaviors, but not entirely eradicate attitudes to which we were exposed as children. What can change, what in fact has changed, are the attitudes that one generation models for the next. For the most part, baby boomers did not pass the prejudices of their parents on to their own children. With each successive generation, bigotry attenuates. Over the course of several generations, prejudice and discrimination may diminish to the point where the young wonder what all the fuss was about.

But, in addition to overcoming temptations to put others down and advantage ourselves at their expense, there’s a conceptual barrier to putting our predatory past behind us. Disallowing predation sounds impossible because we haven’t figured out how to forego it without inhibiting competition. Although it’s natural to see competition as the culprit (because it is so very often unfair, and because many competitors interpret winning a particular competition as an excuse for demeaning and exploiting those who lost), no society that has hamstrung competition has long endured. As libertarian ideology confuses predation with competition and may find itself an apologist for the former, so egalitarian ideology confuses competition with predation and may advocate killing the goose—competition—that lays the golden egg. To this dilemma—how to allow competition and disallow predation—dignitarian governance provides a possible solution.

Competition is an integral part of our past and fair competition is indispensable to a robust future. To delegitimize gradations of power is not only impossible, it’s a recipe for dysfunction and anarchy.

From the natural selection that drives the differentiation of species to the marketplace that refines products and ideas, competition determines fitness and viability and protects us from rankist tendencies inherent in monopoly. To abolish competition is to invite economic stagnation, and eventually to fall behind societies that maintain their competitive edge.

The difference between predation and competition is that predation knows no rules. In contrast, competition can be made fair. Making sure that it is—by disallowing rankism in all its guises—is the proper role of government.

At every point in our social evolution, power rules. Power is neither good nor bad, it just is, and objecting to power differences is like complaining that the sun is brighter than the moon. Abuses of power persist until the individuals or institutions perpetrating them find themselves confronted with greater power. This would be grounds for cynicism were it not that when power is abused, it is misused; and when it is misused, there eventually surfaces a more powerful alternative. The long-term trend of this evolutionary process is the discovery of ever more effective forms of cooperation, successively out-producing, out-performing, and finally displacing rankist organizations, institutions, societies, and states.

The Dawning of a Dignitarian Era

As Mo Tzu tried to tell us, we are one big extended family. The simultaneous advent of globalization and dignitarian values is no coincidence. Predation isn’t working as well as it used to. In addition to the reasons given above, greater exposure to “foreigners” is making their demonization untenable.

Another factor in the demise of the predatory strategy is that victims of rankism have gained access to powerful modern weapons and can exact a high price for humiliations inflicted on them. Thus, the victims themselves are increasingly in a position to make the cost of predation exceed the value of the spoils. Weapons of mass destruction seize the imagination, but even if we do manage to keep them out of the hands of terrorists, non-violent “weapons” of mass disruption, employed by aggrieved groups, can so disrupt modern, highly interdependent societies as to render them dysfunctional. This represents a fundamental shift in the balance of power in favor of the disregarded, disenfranchised, and dispossessed.

Given that predation has been a fixture throughout human history, it’s not surprising that when one form of predation has ceased to pay we devised alternative, subtler forms to accomplish the same thing. Although slavery itself is no longer defended, poverty functions in much the same way—by institutionalizing the domination of the poor by the rich. In the 21st century, the largest group of people that can still be taken advantage of is the poor. We should not be surprised if, using techniques of mass disruption (tactics of non-violent civil disobedience), they acquire the organizational skills to make their ongoing exploitation insupportable.

Something new is afoot, and it marks a change fundamental enough to define an era. Opportunistic predation—the survival strategy that we’ve long taken for human nature—has reached its “sell-by” date. Even wars by superpowers against much weaker states are proving unwinnable. Military domination is no longer the profitable business it once was.

Rankism is the residue of predation. As predatory uses of power are revealed as counterproductive, we leave predation behind, like the toy soldiers of childhood, and create a world in which the uses of power are limited to those that extend and enhance dignity.

Humanity’s next step is to build dignitarian societies and a post-predatory world. Knowing that the moral arc of history does indeed bend towards justice gives reason to hope that this may just be possible.

]]>https://fightrankism.wordpress.com/2011/05/14/the-moral-arc-of-history/feed/0robertwfullermoralarcIs It Possible to Treat Criminals with Dignity?https://fightrankism.wordpress.com/2011/05/11/is-it-possible-to-treat-criminals-with-dignity/
https://fightrankism.wordpress.com/2011/05/11/is-it-possible-to-treat-criminals-with-dignity/#commentsWed, 11 May 2011 19:04:54 +0000http://fightrankism.wordpress.com/?p=162]]>One of the most frequent questions I get asked about the Dignity Movement is whether it’s possible — whether it’s even worthwhile — to treat criminals with dignity. The answer is an unequivocal yes on both counts.

But don’t take my word for it. Watch this short documentary on the first-ever dignitarian prison in the United States.

]]>https://fightrankism.wordpress.com/2011/05/11/is-it-possible-to-treat-criminals-with-dignity/feed/2hillcharlotteThe Definition of Dignity: Did Aristotle Have It Wrong?https://fightrankism.wordpress.com/2011/05/06/the-definition-of-dignity-did-aristotle-have-it-wrong/
https://fightrankism.wordpress.com/2011/05/06/the-definition-of-dignity-did-aristotle-have-it-wrong/#commentsSat, 07 May 2011 02:46:38 +0000http://fightrankism.wordpress.com/?p=158]]>

This is Aristotle. Looks like a nice guy.

I encountered a quote about dignity today:

Dignity consists not in possessing honors, but in the consciousness that we deserve them. -Aristotle

Good old Aristotle, I thought. Never leaves you hanging. Doesn’t it seem like there’s always an ancient Greek guy who’s got the perfect quote for whatever larger-than-life concept you’re pondering on a given day? Plato, Socrates, Aristotle. What would we do without them?

And what a great quote this one seemed. Dignity isn’t something you earn through external rewards, Aristotle declares. It’s something you bestow upon yourself. All it takes to have dignity is to acknowledge that you deserve “honors.” The quote’s especially relevant to the Dignity Movement if by “honors,” Aristotle is referring to that one basic honor that’s fundamental to all human beings: recognition by others.

Really, what else drives us more than recognition? As Charles Horton Cooley expounded 109 years ago, our self-identity is completely wrapped up our perception of how others see us.

As we see our face, figure, and dress in the glass, and are interested in them because they are ours, and pleased or otherwise with them according as they do or do not answer to what we should like them to be; so in imagination we perceive in another’s mind some thought of our appearance, manners, aims, deeds, character, friends, and so on, and are variously affected by it.

We are, as Cooley suggests, “looking-glass selves,” mutually dependent on recognition as we shape our own self-perceptions.

So if Aristotle’s right, and if my liberty in assuming that his “honors” might include — or even allude to — recognition is valid, then, to paraphrase, “Dignity consists not in possessing recognition from others, but in the consciousness that we deserve recognition from others.”

I disagree.

To say that someone has dignity when they’re conscious that they deserve “honors” from others is to suggest that dignity can be gained or lost. Dignity is not a variable. It is a constant.

Take the standard definition of dignity (pulled from Google Definitions just now): “the state or quality of being worthy of honor or respect.” I’ll jump in again to suggest that respect or honor is really nothing more than glorified recognition — recognition of a person’s wholeness, of their nuances, of their unique contributions to the world. Sure, we respect certain business tycoons, but we also respect the man singing in the metro station. Why? Because we can recognize both of them as people. Honor or respect, then, are just higher iterations of fundamental recognition.

So we can redefine dignity to “the state or quality of being worthy of recognition.” And here is my thesis: all people are worthy of recognition, because all people, by sheer result of their nuances, offer unique contributions to the world. Each of us is worthy of recognition as a whole person. And even if we don’t receive that recognition from others — nay, even if we don’t recognize that worthiness in our very own selves — we still have, inherently, dignity.

So, Aristotle, I’m sorry, but I must take issue with your musing on dignity (that, to be fair, you probably rattled off without a moment’s thought, never expecting it to be passed on from generation to generation, analyzed as a moral guidepost by a 23 year-old girl in the year 2011). Here’s my revised version:

Dignity consists not in possessing recognition nor in being conscious that we deserve it. Rather, dignity resides in each of us, quietly waiting to unleash its transformative power upon the world.

]]>https://fightrankism.wordpress.com/2011/05/06/the-definition-of-dignity-did-aristotle-have-it-wrong/feed/2hillcharlottearistotle“Rankism Training for Underlings”: The Lesson of Dean Piattonihttps://fightrankism.wordpress.com/2011/05/03/rankism-training-for-underlings-the-lesson-of-dean-piattoni/
https://fightrankism.wordpress.com/2011/05/03/rankism-training-for-underlings-the-lesson-of-dean-piattoni/#commentsWed, 04 May 2011 02:46:05 +0000http://fightrankism.wordpress.com/?p=150]]>You know the Dignity Movement (against rankism) is gaining traction when a faux-news outlet crafts a tongue-in-cheek piece on rankism in the workplace. Oh, how far we’ve come since the initial publication of Somebodies and Nobodies!

I stumbled across this piece on Twitter the other day while searching for #rankism. Here’s how it starts. (Note: you can read the full piece here.)

Dr. Harvey Piattoni, who has served Lake Huron University for thirty years as as the beloved Dean of Faculty will host a professional development workshop next Thursday for junior faculty and staff.

Sounds normal enough, minus the thirty-year tenure (a bright-red warning light for rankism). The article continues with a quote from said Dean:

“I’ve always prided myself on offering special opportunities for the underlings,” said Dean Piattoni. “Many of my former staff members have left Lake Huron soon after they were hired, and now they’re deans and vice presidents themselves. I know it’s because I helped empower them to move up the career ladder more quickly.”

You can see where this is headed. The description of the rankism workshop is especially great:

Dean Piattoni’s workshop will include topics such as:

How to make everyone happy all the time so you don’t feel marginalized
How to stay in the same job long enough to consistently earn incremental promotions so you’re no longer junior-level
How to swing any way the wind blows in order to please the person above you

As the old saying goes, “It’s funny because it’s true.” How many of us have worked under bosses who thought they were on the cutting edge of morality, while in fact, they were merely blind to their own rankist tendencies?

All the more reason to direct ample attention to our own tendencies toward rankism, lest we become Dean Piattonis ourselves!